As the Trump regime moves to "dismantle" the "radical left," leaders of the civic renewal movement are struggling to build common ground. Maybe their "both sides equally bad" approach is out of date?
Thoughtful piece. I think the Bridge Building movement has usefulness in finding common ground among ordinary Americans. And sometimes political leaders as well. In my Soul of a Citizen book I wrote about how a series of organized cross partisan dialogues sparked a friendship between Joan Blades, then with MoveOn, which she'd founded, as mentioned, and the founder of Christian Coalition--that led to saving Net Neutrality at that point.
It's also critical to reach out to disaffected members of the MAGA coalition even if we disagree with other things they stand for. I've been reading Alexei Navalny's powerful memoir, and he makes that point in terms of Russian nationalists who opposed Putin, and whose demonstrations were crushed as threats to his power as much as those of the democracy camp that Navalny was part of.
But as you point out, in a time when the administration is trying to destroy all dialogue and opposition, it seems wrong to ignore that elephant in the room, much less blame left cancel culture for the divides. I don't have the answer on how that bridgebuilding movement should address it, but I think they have to.
Thank you for this. As someone who's been involved in bridge-building for a while (and peace building, which is what this is called internationally) I have some thoughts.
The main thing I want to get across is this: it's important to understand what the goals of bridge-building are and aren't. For example, the goal is not to promote progressive politics. That's the job of progressives. The goal is to have a functioning democracy where conflicts are resolved without violence or destruction. There are many ways to support this, as the Burgesses have documented (see https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/53-roles-that-make-democracy-work)
I think you are right that the Trump administration presents a clear danger to our democracy. I also think that this message has been shouted from the rooftops for years, and it did not prevent him from winning a fair election. I don't see why shouting it louder will be successful now.
And I do think the left has some responsibility for this situation, which will have to be acknowledged before anyone on the right will be willing to collaborate across political difference. Minimally, I think many of the responses to Trump's polarizing actions were themselves polarizing when they didn't have to be -- an own goal. In my view, this happened because most people are not trained to think about conflict the way that professional peace builders are.
The problem, as I see it, is that Trump can get away with dismantling democracy because far too many people are so angry that they support him. If this analysis is correct, the the winning strategy -- winning in the sense of democracy-preserving, not progressive-politics-advancing -- is for "us" to unite with "them" to against authoritarianism and corruption.
This strategy is sometimes called "repolarization." The goal is to change the axis of conflict, not to remove or suppress conflict. This view has been explicitly expressed by, among others, political scientist Jennifer McCoy, whom I recently interviewed (https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/repolarize-to-depolarize)
For more on this strategy, from the progressive viewpoint, see also:
Shikha Dalmia’s keynote at the recent “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference
As someone who has been a Braver Angels member and supporter for almost five years, I'm afraid you've misunderstood and mischaracterized it Micah.
To be clear, Braver Angels doesn't believe "both sides are equally bad" nor that the answer to political questions is to "sum up the demands on each side, divide by two and voila, you’ve found the happy middle." Braver Angels explicitly does NOT believe that wisdom is usually found in the middle. Nor does it believe that "efforts to fix our broken and hyper-polarized democracy" should avoid politics.
In fact, there are actually plenty of people at Braver Angels who would 100% agree with you that Trump and the MAGA right are the biggest threat to democracy. Meanwhile, there are other folks who would 100% agree with Jim Robb that the biggest threat is the radical left's formulation that words are violence and what that can lead to. Braver Angels very deliberately cultivates an organization that includes people from across the political spectrum, and it asks none of them to change or moderate their beliefs.
All it asks in the debates and forums that it organizes is that everyone participating "find their better angels and remember “our bonds of affection.” Braver Angels fully recognizes that change will always politics, but it believe that one's political opponents are not one's enemies and that better understanding and solutions will come when we try to listen and truly understand the folks who disagree with us rather than simply writing them off.
In fairness to you an event to promote unity involving many different organizations convened in the aftermath of a political assassination is not going to be the best place to understand what one specific organization is about, so I can see why you were led astray. On the other hand, I would expect that someone attending such an event would be self aware enough to understand that fact.
If you really want to understand what Braver Angels is about, the best thing you can do is to read April Lawson's wonderful "Sidney" winning essay "Building Trust Across the Political Divide":
These folks remind me of Michael Eichler and his Consensus Organizing Institute, which was a darling of the foundations because he didn’t believe in conflict, ha.
Thank you for explaining me to myself, Micah. I keep saying to friends, "Has my tolerance and empathy just run dry?" No. We must push back--dare I say by whatever means necessary?--to stop people who are "drunk with rage" and "possibility." You continue to be a beacon of clarity and thoughtfulness in the maelstrom.
Great article once again Micah, thank you. I am in Montana, and helped organize an event a week ago in support of the Transparent Election Initiative (the initiative the person in your article, Tom Moore, is talking about); this initiative (also known as "The Montana Plan") is far from a pipe dream. Go to this web site for more info: https://transparentelection.org/
And no - the Transparent Election Initiative doesn't solve the problem of individual wealthy donors (but as Elon Musk's donations in Wisconsin's recent state Supreme Court election shows us - that tactic can backfire). What people must remember is, (1) since the passage of Citizens United in 2010, corporate spending on elections has increased by a mind-boggling 2800%, and (2) SuperPACs can currently keep their funding sources secret. The Montana Plan addresses both these problems.
I read Tom Moore's article and found it persuasive - thanks for pointing out that the oligarchs could still spend their personal funds. I have two questions, though:
1) How does the Montana Plan stop SuperPACS from keeping their funding sources secret?
2) Can this only be done on the state level, or can Congress restrict what powers states are permitted to grant to corporate entities?
They always want us to think we can fix the world without dealing with who has power. Many Americans are suckers for this stuff. Helps to have been top empire most of our lives. Only tough times are likely to teach us different.
During Trump 1 I signed up for a Braver Angels event to be connected via zoom to someone from the right and have a discussion. When connected it became clear that the other person was exactly like me, a liberal. We had fun but I never was connected with someone from the right.
As someone that has worked on gun control for 20 years and understand that one party owns most of the guns... It has been clear that there is no debate and bridge building with people that own murder machines. Only now most liberals are figuring this out. It's probably too late as scotus is captive and the GOP won't provide any check or balance.
I've had a growing interest in bridge-building for the last couple of years. Your article is very helpful because I didn't know how much it has grown as a funded sector in the US, while this has not yet happened here in the UK. And it has therefore given me some good leads to follow up on to learn from the US experience.
The examples you gave of people speaking to the need for bridge-building, while still being political, are themselves politicians. I think it is valuable and welcome for politicians to promote and engage in bridge-building, and it is fine for them to do this alongside making political attacks on those who threaten democracy and promote division.
But perhaps the people who are solely working as bridge-builders should remain non-political. I think that if they do not, it might undermine what they can achieve. And the main thing they achieve is to create the space that makes it possible for those of us who are political to conduct a better politics.
That said, I think that there is probably an implicit politics to bridge-building that is more aligned with political values like equality and pluralism, and opposed to authoritarian values. Authoritarian politics stokes up division as a tool of power and control. This works for authoritarians because of the neurobiology of fear and anxiety, and how it shuts down our capacities for rationality, curiosity, and a wide sphere of compassion beyond narrow, tribalist self-protection. They can then recruit support for anti-democratic measures, which allow them to seize more power and wealth.
I think that progressives and democratic conservatives should trust that bridge-building activities have political value in undermining authoritarian and anti-democratic political figures and movements. They achieve this without ever having to make explicit political attacks on those people, because when people make trusting connections with others and feel safe with them, they are more rational, curious and compassionate.
I would imagine that many people doing bridge-building work are very interested in and well-informed about the relevant neurobiology, and that they apply it to their practice.
Thoughtful piece. I think the Bridge Building movement has usefulness in finding common ground among ordinary Americans. And sometimes political leaders as well. In my Soul of a Citizen book I wrote about how a series of organized cross partisan dialogues sparked a friendship between Joan Blades, then with MoveOn, which she'd founded, as mentioned, and the founder of Christian Coalition--that led to saving Net Neutrality at that point.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-christian-coalition-and-moveon-saved-internet_b_591de555e4b0e8f558bb24a9
It's also critical to reach out to disaffected members of the MAGA coalition even if we disagree with other things they stand for. I've been reading Alexei Navalny's powerful memoir, and he makes that point in terms of Russian nationalists who opposed Putin, and whose demonstrations were crushed as threats to his power as much as those of the democracy camp that Navalny was part of.
But as you point out, in a time when the administration is trying to destroy all dialogue and opposition, it seems wrong to ignore that elephant in the room, much less blame left cancel culture for the divides. I don't have the answer on how that bridgebuilding movement should address it, but I think they have to.
Thank you for this. As someone who's been involved in bridge-building for a while (and peace building, which is what this is called internationally) I have some thoughts.
The main thing I want to get across is this: it's important to understand what the goals of bridge-building are and aren't. For example, the goal is not to promote progressive politics. That's the job of progressives. The goal is to have a functioning democracy where conflicts are resolved without violence or destruction. There are many ways to support this, as the Burgesses have documented (see https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/53-roles-that-make-democracy-work)
I think you are right that the Trump administration presents a clear danger to our democracy. I also think that this message has been shouted from the rooftops for years, and it did not prevent him from winning a fair election. I don't see why shouting it louder will be successful now.
And I do think the left has some responsibility for this situation, which will have to be acknowledged before anyone on the right will be willing to collaborate across political difference. Minimally, I think many of the responses to Trump's polarizing actions were themselves polarizing when they didn't have to be -- an own goal. In my view, this happened because most people are not trained to think about conflict the way that professional peace builders are.
The problem, as I see it, is that Trump can get away with dismantling democracy because far too many people are so angry that they support him. If this analysis is correct, the the winning strategy -- winning in the sense of democracy-preserving, not progressive-politics-advancing -- is for "us" to unite with "them" to against authoritarianism and corruption.
This strategy is sometimes called "repolarization." The goal is to change the axis of conflict, not to remove or suppress conflict. This view has been explicitly expressed by, among others, political scientist Jennifer McCoy, whom I recently interviewed (https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/repolarize-to-depolarize)
For more on this strategy, from the progressive viewpoint, see also:
Shikha Dalmia’s keynote at the recent “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference
Liberals Need Moral Clarity, Not Moral Purity, in Their Struggle Against Authoritarianism https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/liberals-need-moral-clarity-not-moral
john a. powell's paper discussing how bridging and racial justice activism relate
Overcoming Toxic Polarization: Lessons in Effective Bridging https://lawandinequality.org/article/overcoming-toxic-polarization/
Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading.
As someone who has been a Braver Angels member and supporter for almost five years, I'm afraid you've misunderstood and mischaracterized it Micah.
To be clear, Braver Angels doesn't believe "both sides are equally bad" nor that the answer to political questions is to "sum up the demands on each side, divide by two and voila, you’ve found the happy middle." Braver Angels explicitly does NOT believe that wisdom is usually found in the middle. Nor does it believe that "efforts to fix our broken and hyper-polarized democracy" should avoid politics.
In fact, there are actually plenty of people at Braver Angels who would 100% agree with you that Trump and the MAGA right are the biggest threat to democracy. Meanwhile, there are other folks who would 100% agree with Jim Robb that the biggest threat is the radical left's formulation that words are violence and what that can lead to. Braver Angels very deliberately cultivates an organization that includes people from across the political spectrum, and it asks none of them to change or moderate their beliefs.
All it asks in the debates and forums that it organizes is that everyone participating "find their better angels and remember “our bonds of affection.” Braver Angels fully recognizes that change will always politics, but it believe that one's political opponents are not one's enemies and that better understanding and solutions will come when we try to listen and truly understand the folks who disagree with us rather than simply writing them off.
In fairness to you an event to promote unity involving many different organizations convened in the aftermath of a political assassination is not going to be the best place to understand what one specific organization is about, so I can see why you were led astray. On the other hand, I would expect that someone attending such an event would be self aware enough to understand that fact.
If you really want to understand what Braver Angels is about, the best thing you can do is to read April Lawson's wonderful "Sidney" winning essay "Building Trust Across the Political Divide":
https://comment.org/building-trust-across-the-political-divide/
These folks remind me of Michael Eichler and his Consensus Organizing Institute, which was a darling of the foundations because he didn’t believe in conflict, ha.
Thank you thank you for this thoughtfulness. It's been so lacking especially in the past week.
Thank you for explaining me to myself, Micah. I keep saying to friends, "Has my tolerance and empathy just run dry?" No. We must push back--dare I say by whatever means necessary?--to stop people who are "drunk with rage" and "possibility." You continue to be a beacon of clarity and thoughtfulness in the maelstrom.
Great article once again Micah, thank you. I am in Montana, and helped organize an event a week ago in support of the Transparent Election Initiative (the initiative the person in your article, Tom Moore, is talking about); this initiative (also known as "The Montana Plan") is far from a pipe dream. Go to this web site for more info: https://transparentelection.org/
And no - the Transparent Election Initiative doesn't solve the problem of individual wealthy donors (but as Elon Musk's donations in Wisconsin's recent state Supreme Court election shows us - that tactic can backfire). What people must remember is, (1) since the passage of Citizens United in 2010, corporate spending on elections has increased by a mind-boggling 2800%, and (2) SuperPACs can currently keep their funding sources secret. The Montana Plan addresses both these problems.
I read Tom Moore's article and found it persuasive - thanks for pointing out that the oligarchs could still spend their personal funds. I have two questions, though:
1) How does the Montana Plan stop SuperPACS from keeping their funding sources secret?
2) Can this only be done on the state level, or can Congress restrict what powers states are permitted to grant to corporate entities?
They always want us to think we can fix the world without dealing with who has power. Many Americans are suckers for this stuff. Helps to have been top empire most of our lives. Only tough times are likely to teach us different.
"the imaginary middle....."
I went to Bluesky and bitched at Searchlight. So did a lot of other people.
During Trump 1 I signed up for a Braver Angels event to be connected via zoom to someone from the right and have a discussion. When connected it became clear that the other person was exactly like me, a liberal. We had fun but I never was connected with someone from the right.
As someone that has worked on gun control for 20 years and understand that one party owns most of the guns... It has been clear that there is no debate and bridge building with people that own murder machines. Only now most liberals are figuring this out. It's probably too late as scotus is captive and the GOP won't provide any check or balance.
I've had a growing interest in bridge-building for the last couple of years. Your article is very helpful because I didn't know how much it has grown as a funded sector in the US, while this has not yet happened here in the UK. And it has therefore given me some good leads to follow up on to learn from the US experience.
The examples you gave of people speaking to the need for bridge-building, while still being political, are themselves politicians. I think it is valuable and welcome for politicians to promote and engage in bridge-building, and it is fine for them to do this alongside making political attacks on those who threaten democracy and promote division.
But perhaps the people who are solely working as bridge-builders should remain non-political. I think that if they do not, it might undermine what they can achieve. And the main thing they achieve is to create the space that makes it possible for those of us who are political to conduct a better politics.
That said, I think that there is probably an implicit politics to bridge-building that is more aligned with political values like equality and pluralism, and opposed to authoritarian values. Authoritarian politics stokes up division as a tool of power and control. This works for authoritarians because of the neurobiology of fear and anxiety, and how it shuts down our capacities for rationality, curiosity, and a wide sphere of compassion beyond narrow, tribalist self-protection. They can then recruit support for anti-democratic measures, which allow them to seize more power and wealth.
I think that progressives and democratic conservatives should trust that bridge-building activities have political value in undermining authoritarian and anti-democratic political figures and movements. They achieve this without ever having to make explicit political attacks on those people, because when people make trusting connections with others and feel safe with them, they are more rational, curious and compassionate.
I would imagine that many people doing bridge-building work are very interested in and well-informed about the relevant neurobiology, and that they apply it to their practice.